> extremely permissive licenses of many open source project are nothing but a redistribution of wealth upwards Although I license all my amateur work GPLv3, I

> extremely permissive licenses of many open source project are nothing but a redistribution of wealth upwards Although I license all my amateur work GPLv3, I dispute the assertion that more permissive licenses are "nothing but" a redistribution of wealth upwards. Permissive licenses commoditize their features. This is of benefit to everyone, but organizations with more capital are better positioned to leverage that commodity, and typically when they do, they do so selfishly. This further centralizes value with them, but I believe this is still a better outcome than a closed license because of the educational/cultural/technical benefits to everyone of the open license. The capital leverage problem is orthogonal to that. Copyleft licenses kind of do the same commoditization thing, but explicitly only for share-alike uses, which is why they're the only way to grow open culture relative to proprietary culture: they're designed to deny "freeloaders" on open culture by requiring all derivative works to also be open. > without any benefit to original authors Benefiting the original authors is not (directly) the point of open source. MIT: "Here's some code, go nuts." GPL: "Here's some code, go nuts, but share the nuts if you do." There's zero value capture for the original author built into these licenses. If the original author wants to ensure they capture the value from their work, I recommend using a closed, proprietary license. Just be aware they're applying friction to the overall technological development of humanity by doing so.